The Overpopulation of White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus):

How Deer Disrupt Ecological Communities in the Absence of Effective Wildlife Management

Introduction:

Sustainability has emerged as a goal for human society, with communities of people rising to address the problems

of such issues as climate change, deforestation, energy consumption, materialism, and waste management.

Colleges and universities have played a major role in educating the public about the need for policy change and

have taken it upon themselves to figure out how to conquer sustainability. Commonly, the assumption is that

greater technological gains are needed, and accordingly, many leaders of science are focused intently on mastering

materials use and energy efficiency in their policy change recommendations. This is most certainly a good thing.

However, amid the fervor for human ingenuity, certain aspects of sustainability have been overlooked.

Stewardship of the land we live on is an important part of securing an environmentally-friendly future. Whether

for intrinsic or utilitarian purposes, care and attention must be paid to the condition of the landscape. As

university faculty and administration strive to educate and innovate, they should also be partial to the state of the

immediate environment.

Likewise, Binghamton University, State University of New York (SUNY) has pledged to pursue sustainability

through increased funding toward state-of-the-art research facilities for the broad fields of information and

technology, and materials use and energy efficiency. The Engineering and Science Building “is only the third in

the SUNY system to achieve LEED Platinum status. In 2011, The Engineering News Record named the building

its top “Green Project of the Year in the New York Region” in its annual competition.” (“Engineering and Science

Building Earns LEED Platinum Certification”). These buildings will be located within sight of a large wildlife

sanctuary adjacent to campus. The Nature Preserve is a secondary growth eastern deciduous forest that is valuable

to the institution in a number of ways, including leisure, research, and environmental health. Unfortunately for the

institution, its resident White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus viginianus) population has grown beyond the environmental

carrying capacity, causing great harm to the sanctuary through over-browsing. This problem has yet to be

remedied by the institution.

Although Binghamton University’s environmental policy heralds an era of sustainability (“Environmental

Policy”), SUNY Officials, campus administration, and many faculty members collectively appear to be more

concerned about techno-fixes and efficiency than the unsustainable methods of institution land stewardship. This

is somewhat hypocritical. In the effort to increase the sustainability of Binghamton University, I urge the

administration to consider proper land stewardship alongside efficiency as viable policy responses to affect a more

sustainable community. For by continuing to ignore the problems we face in the Nature Preserve, it becomes

obvious that the quest for sustainability is only a façade. If Binghamton University is to take sustainability

seriously, then we need to acknowledge the connection that our causal actions and inactions have to human-

induced effects on the environment.

In this paper, I will use the case study of the Nature Preserve’s resident deer to demonstrate the inadequate policy

response given to environmental problems at Binghamton University. History, scientific data, and public opinion

are all relevant to this analysis, as the problem we face arose and manifested itself in very complicated ways. In

Section I, I revisit the history of North American forests, teasing out the reasons for deer over-abundance, and our

society’s attitude toward it, from the tangled origins of American society. Then I move on to address certain

ecological principles and how they relate to the case study in Section II. Section III details past, present, and

potential future management practices, including the differences in public opinion on policy decisions and the

reasons for administrative inaction, and in Section IV, I evaluate the results of a survey of public opinion and

knowledge. I do this to address the content of Section III, highlighting the inappropriateness of assumption in the

policy-making process. Finally, in Section V, I use the information presented to voice my personal opinions and

concluding recommendations concerning the deer issue and how it has been handled by key personnel. As we

proceed, it should remain clear that my ultimate concern is for the future of sustainability at Binghamton

University, which seems to be hindered by apathetic leadership in the policy-making process.

Section I: History Revisited and the American Perspective

The steady state of North American forests appears very different today than before the conquest of the New

World by European imperialists. Land-clearing and over-hunting by a burgeoning population of colonial settlers

drove the natural wilderness and its inhabitants from the east thereafter. Due to the 19th century conservation

movement and 20th century abandonment of agricultural land, some species of plants, animals, and indeed some

entire ecological community types have made a resurgence in eastern deciduous forests. Notably, the White-

Tailed Deer has rebounded to record abundance in the east, coinciding with human mass disenfranchisement with

the pastime of hunting.

This dichotomy has been largely responsible for an evolutionary advantage enjoyed by deer; incidence of deer

overabundance has emerged as a prevalent ailment to forest communities due to an increase in viable habitat and

absence of natural predators. “Of America’s roughly thirty million deer, just under five million are mule deer or

blacktails. All the rest are whitetails” (Cambronne, 7). Like many other environmental plagues, the regional

White-tailed Deer (hereafter deer) over-abundance issue is one that has resulted from human disturbance of

ecological communities.

In order to gain perspective as to why this has occurred, we must return to the founding of our society and the

disappearance of wilderness from the eastern forest. In this section, I will briefly recount the history of the

American dream. I hope to show how our societal goals have framed our relationship with deer. Even through the

cultural transformations of time, we have maintained a similar perspective on environmental issues

Pre-colonial America was a place of ecological balance. The ebb and flow of natural processes ruled the

landscape, allowing the abundance of each species to oscillate around the carrying capacity. This included the

mainly hunter-gatherer societies of Native Americans. Although it is clear that natives manipulated the landscape

with small-scale farming and fire, their ability and desire to deconstruct the environmental communities present

was negligible to that of the white settlers from Europe. Natives were reliant on the wildlife present in the forest

for their survival, and in a way, they were part of the landscape themselves. Respect for the land and its perpetual

health was the central principle around which their society was centered.

In contrast to the hunter-gatherer society of natives, European society was based on the agriculture of plants and

animals. Subsistence in the most basic sense depended on the ability to manipulate and disturb the landscape

effectively. Therefore, it is no surprise that their arrival on the eastern shores of North America was immediately

followed by rapid deforestation of the continent’s largest forest. Throughout the next two hundred years, as the

population of Europeans grew, fragmentation and disturbance of forests enabled the foundation of a growing

American society (Sterba, 25).

Within this society were prejudices that enabled the destruction of the previous steady state. It was religious

oppression that brought the colonists to the New World and, ironically, it was religious intolerance that drove them

to ignore the continent’s inhabitants. In fact, the relationship between settlers and natives deteriorated quickly due

to the lack of mutual respect. “Demonizing the landscape and its occupants helped justify conquest and

destruction, which was the first step in the creation of a new Eden” (Sterba, 22). Natives were thought of as

savages by colonists because they were incapable of destroying the landscape and plundering its abundant natural

resources. Further, the dangerous wilderness was unnerving to settlers. Apex predators – such as wolves and

mountain lions – were purposefully eradicated for human and livestock safety. Other large mammals were later

extirpated incidentally. Overall, taming the wilderness was necessary in constructing an agricultural utopia that

was free of oppression (except for oppression of slaves, women, and natives; but we won’t get into that), their god-

given right.

However, though settlers negatively viewed the natural environment, there was some utility in the forest for this

new American culture. Colonists depended on the forest for unrefined products and natural resources. Trees were

harvested for timber, firewood, and resin, certain animals for fur, leather, or wax, and countless animals for food.

These resources built towns, ships, and fueled everything from people’s fireplaces to the colonial economy. And

yet, respect for the environment remained lacking because of the relative abundance of these resources. It was

unfathomable that natural resources could become scarce due to deforestation and population explosion (Sterba,

89; Andrus 2014).

Nineteenth century America was a different place than early colonial America. Technology was more advanced

and radical changes in culture were underway. The population was certainly much larger and had expanded west

past the Appalachian Mountains. “By 1850, the U.S. population had grown to 23.3 million, and wood supplied 90

percent of the nation’s energy needs” (Sterba, 29). But more importantly, the assault on forests had been occurring

for over two hundred years, allowing a much greater proportion of the landscape to become fragmented and tamed

for the purpose of agriculture. The landscape of that time was exhausted of unrefined resources and lacked the

complexity of the old growth forest that used to blanket the eastern half of the United States. For most forest-

dwelling animals, this was unfavorable. Disappearance of habitat, coupled with over-exploitation of natural

resources, resulted in the rapid decline in most wildlife populations. White-tailed deer were no exception. In this

way, it was evident that the initial colonial attitude toward the environment was preserved through early America,

though the society was progressive in other ways.

By mid-century and beyond, many people in the east began to move from the northeastern countryside. Factory

work and industry was booming, encouraging a great proportion of citizens to abandon their subsistence lives and

embrace the free labor capitalist mantra in cities. Additionally, the settlement of the mid-west and great plains

regions gave incentive for farmers to relocate to more fertile soils with longer growing seasons. Much farmland in

the east was abandoned during this time, left to become untamed with brambles, thickets, and woods. Secondary

succession transformed the abandoned colonial fields into forests, viable habitat for wildlife. Loggers were

focused elsewhere, in the virgin forests of the southeast and great lakes regions. Economically-oriented people

paid no mind to the monumental re-seeding of a second generation forest (Sterba, 47).

Around the same time, the crescendo of environmental destruction and society’s general ambivalence to it helped

to inspire the transcendentalism and conservation movements. In both spiritual and practical senses, many wealthy

Americans were ready to address the general disrepair that society and the American wild had fallen into. These

cultural movements, coupled with the incidental increase in wildlife habitat, aided the reappearance of many

extirpated species in the east (Sterba, 90). Conservation was particularly relevant to this societal shift because of

its political implications. Some environmentalists advocated for environmental protection for intrinsic motives and

were called preservationists, whereas others were more utilitarian and were called conservationists (“Policy

Making Framework”, 3). More specifically, historical giants such as John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt

advocated for similar policy responses, but for different reasons entirely (Andrus 2014).

The utilitarian perspective was more widely accepted due to society’s predominant attitude toward the natural

world, and accordingly, advocates for the preservation of large mammals were generally avid hunters, pursuing

conservation policy to protect public access to abundant game species (Sterba, 96). The North American model of

wildlife management was thus born. It was “a scheme to give all the wildlife to all the people, so that each person

would, in theory, have a vested interest in looking after it … The model evolved from Greek and Roman ideas that

some things in the natural world should not be owned” (Sterba, 94). In other words, it was the duty of the

government to protect the commons so that citizens could have equal access. This described the flavor of national

environmental policy in response to ecological distress until the mid-twentieth century, when the intrinsically-

oriented counterculture berated policy-makers on their lackluster understanding of ecological principles.

Coinciding this drawn-out movement was an increase in the size of the middle class. Depression-era public

welfare programs and the flourishing post-war economy uplifted Americans from poverty, allowing many people

to economically justify luxury. The affluent working class wanted to raise their families away from the populous

city centers. However, instead of a return to agrarian society, the 1950s efflux of populations out of cities

established communities with smaller estates and larger houses. The appeal was a more comfortable life, free of

city stressors, but still close enough so that a daily commute was possible. This required a re-fragmentation of the

landscape. Suburban sprawl was the 20th century American dream, manifesting in miles of ecological disturbance

radiating outward from every municipality and metropolis. And if we fast-forward through to the present, these

suburbs would grow and grow, connecting with each other all along the eastern seaboard to create a vast expanse

of ecological fragmentation and disturbance.

So how do deer fit into these societal transformations? How have they responded to the past century of

environmental policy?

Deer repopulation was initially sponsored by wildlife biologists and their translocation schemes (Cambronne, 8),

but it became clear very quickly that they would not need to remain intimately involved. The proactive phase of

deer conservation was short-lived and was followed by an explosion of deer abundance in many regions (Sterba,

98). Deer themselves have been mostly responsible for quickly rebounding in abundance and repopulating distant

areas of extirpation. Through no fault of their own, they have been very effective at colonization, most likely due

to a coincidental predisposition for mild disturbance, a generalist herbivore palette, and an ability to be highly

mobile (Cambronne, 10-11, 19). This population growth rate was encouraged by environmental policies such as

the “Buck Law”, which was a hunting regulation only allowing the annual harvest of male deer. By this design,

even though there were less males, the remaining bucks could mate with all the spared females, resulting in more

deer (Sterba, 100).

The coincidence of suburbs and deer abundance meant that deer began to appear in suburban communities almost

immediately, quickly finding them to be extremely favorable. “Whitetails are an edge species; that is, they flourish

where one type of vegetation ends and another begins” (Sterba, 89). Likewise, suburban sprawl is only comprised

of edges, allowing ample bedding, watering, and hiding places, but also open areas to run and forage in.

Additionally, the absence of hunters and natural predators in these residential areas culminated in an ecological

haven for deer.

As aforementioned, suburban areas grew in size as a greater proportion of Americans sought the luxuries of a

suburban life. Those wildlife species that were well-suited to it also became more abundant until finally, in the

latter half of the twentieth century, it became evident that deer were perhaps too abundant in some areas. This

illustrated a marked change in the attitudes of Americans toward deer. “When they were scarce, whitetails were

seen almost universally as elegant creatures, a thrill to watch leaping a fence, tail high. As their numbers grew,

perceptions changed. They became nuisances, even menaces” (Sterba, 87). Deer browsing in areas of high density

had incurred massive damages to cropland, parks, and private landscaping, posed a public health threat in the form

of Lyme’s Disease and vehicle collisions, and had played a part in the displacement of understory plants and

animals (Sterba, 88). In general, this is the picture that many people see today. An elegant creature was first

raised high on a pedestal and then subsequently dropped from favor. Of course, the deer had nothing to do with

this. The fluctuations of deer populations have all been caused by humans, their interactions with the landscape,

and the environmental policies enacted by culture, society, and the state.

This historical journey should tell us something about our relationship with the natural world. In the beginning,

there were too many resources to know what to do with, so we squandered them away in the process of

“improving” the landscape. This created scarcity and we scolded ourselves for unwise use during the transitional

period, all the while only justifying environmental policies so that we could preserve our right to consume

resources. Today, the hurrying suburban commuter dodges a deer or two each morning, cursing as he careens past.

In summary, we are ever at odds with the environment. Though American society has reorganized itself many

times through the avenues of technological advancement, affluence, and population increase, this one original

perspective remains. It is clear from our history that we do not fully understand or appreciate the intricacies of the

natural world. Therefore, we should not be surprised when environmental problems persist.

Section II: A Policy Analysis of the Binghamton University

Nature Preserve Forested Lands and its Deer Population

Populations of white-tailed deer breaching one-hundred per square mile far exceed the carrying capacity of a

forest. That is, excessive herbivory by selective browsers is wildly unhealthy for the ecological community and is

unsustainable. In the following section, I will use scientific evidence to support my claim that high deer density

has unfavorable implications on native vegetation and understory residents. The cited articles and expert opinions

serve to solidly justify human interventional in general. In due course, I will show the important role that forested

landscapes traditionally play in human society’s sustainability and how deer overabundance erodes this capacity.

The result of deer overabundance in many forest communities, including the Binghamton University Nature

Preserve, has been the slow demise and disappearance of many native species of plants and animals, followed by

the ruinous invasion of non-native species, deterioration of forest structural complexity, and the capacity of the

forest to provide vital ecosystem services.

The Binghamton University Nature Preserve

The story at Binghamton University begins with a little bit of history. The previous owner of the landscape was a

farmer and he used the land for varied row cropping and grazing purposes. This made purchase ideal for campus

development because it was already cleared of trees in certain places, yet had forested lands over the rest. Today,

the campus remains situated in Vestal, NY on roughly 930 acres of forested land, some of which has been annexed

since the initial purchase. Much of it is the developed campus community that boasts over a hundred buildings,

but about 190 acres have been set aside as an environmental sanctuary (“About the University”).

Echoing agricultural land abandonment that was discussed in Section I, the undeveloped portions of the farm were

left alone to undergo vegetative succession in what is now called the Nature Preserve. This has resulted in a

relatively mature secondary growth forest on the property, which is valued intrinsically and instrumentally by the

university. Suburban sprawl adjacent to the campus has accompanied the development at BU, and as the old

agricultural lands have become more edged, deer have colonized the landscape.

Dylan Horvath, Steward of Natural Areas, is charged with management of the Nature Preserve and is

understandably attuned to the subtle changes in the campus environment. He and other ecological experts have

collectively determined that the Nature Preserve is overrun with deer, concluding that the preserve has acted as a

refuge for deer for the past half-century, allowing their abundance to grow past and remain above the social and

ecological carrying capacity. This has caused the social and environmental value of the Preserve and surrounding

residential areas to diminish.

Ecological Analysis

This fact became evident to resident ecologists with the appearance of a consumption or “browse” line in the forest

understory. A browse line is an obvious visible change in vegetation density that is caused by excessive herbivory.

In the case of high deer density, the line appears uniformly at about two meters above the forest floor, allowing one

to peer through the understory in a very unnatural capacity. Most herbaceous and woody plants are denuded and

defoliated within reach of the deer, excepting unpalatable varieties, resulting in the bare soil surface and branches

that are seen in the Nature Preserve understory. It is generally only found within the interior of a forest due to an

herbivore’s healthy wariness of human predation. In such cases, a “green curtain” exists near forest edges – the

term green curtain means absence of defoliation around the forest perimeter. Accordingly, the disappearance of

the Nature Preserve green curtain within the past decade has prominently signified the overabundance of deer

(Horvath, 2014), as the absence of predation has allowed deer to become increasingly present and bold in the forest

community (Masse and Cote, 2011). They have responded by eating their way through the entirety of the

reachable understory vegetation to the forest edges (Andrus, 2014).

Ecologists commonly use such qualitative measures as the existence of defoliation patterns to visually assess

natural areas for deer pressure. These determinations can and should be trusted due to the high correlation of

woody plant herbivory to deer abundance in experimental study (Rossell et al. 2007; Rooney 2008; Russell and

Fowler 2004; Bressette and Beck 2012). Thus, the browse line and green curtain are such telling devices because

they exhibit the unilateral defoliation and/or denuding of woody plants within the physical reach of the herbivore.

Environmental professionals have qualitatively evaluated deer pressure further by gauging the abundance of

certain understory species. This has been accomplished by their frequent presence in the Nature Preserve,

allowing ecologists to notice the relative decline in species abundance. Native sentinel species have therefore been

used as environmental assessment tools (Blossey, 2014). To put this another way, invasive species displacement

of native flora has been used as a symptom of “vegetation degradation in deer-impacted forests” (Rawinski, 22).

Their findings are supplemented with experimental conclusions in the following paragraphs.

Professor John Titus discontinued his Population Ecology lecture on forest wildflowers because there simply

weren’t any left to exemplify (Horvath 2014). This was clearly caused by selective deer browsing, with deer

density showing correlation with the abundance of flowers and forbs (Rossell et al. 2007). Flowers, which are

nutrient dense in comparison to other palatable forage, are typically some of the first vegetation to show threaten

extirpation (Rawinski, 24). It has also been shown in experimental study that the “cover by species with showy,

insect-pollinated flowers is 79 times greater in [deer] exclosures” (Rooney 2008), indicating the effect that deer

must have on angiosperms.

Professors Andrus and Titus have also expressed concern for the forest community’s trees. The low abundance of

saplings and seedlings has indicated that deer pressure greatly hinders the reproductive capacity of the forest.

Sapling herbivory with moderate deer pressure contributes to the perpetuation of trees in younger age classes.

Deer appear to prefer larger plants, indicating that they might be mainly responsible for preventing recruitment to

the canopy and to older age classes in general (Russell and Fowler 2004). This problem becomes worse with

heavy grazing pressure.

As depicted in Figure 1 from Bressette and Beck 2012, seedlings are highly susceptible to deer predation in

instances of high deer density. Deer will not stray from targeting seedlings or other less favorable woody browse

if

such vegetation is the most abundant or nutritionally favorable in the area. Further, their tendency to “nip”

vegetation as they pass, sampling palatability as they pass has potential to greatly defoliate at high deer densities

without even contributing to an individual deer’s nutrition (Andrus 2014, Horvath 2014). In Figure 1, seedlings in

the control plots showed much less probability of survival than the exclosure plots, indicating the impact that deer

have on resident vegetation (Bressette and Beck, 2012).

One might ask how and why deer have been able to sustain high densities in the Nature Preserve as the quality of

forage has decreased. In other words, how can deer maintain population levels above carrying capacity?

Shouldn’t their population fluctuate according to nutrition abundance or scarcity? This has been one basis by

which animal rights groups have disputed environmentally-justified animal nuisance culls. Ecologists have

answered these questions by conducting experiments demonstrating “the high plasticity of deer behavior ... The

strong association between alternative food sources and deer space use could be a mechanism enhancing winter

survival, and thus, maintaining high population densities in overbrowsed landscapes” (Masse and Cote, 2011).

Habitat selection appears to play a major role in providing ecological subsidies to woody browse when it is scarce.

Daily movement into and out of suburbs may also be an example of this, as deer use suburban plantings as

alternative food sources to supplement naturally-occurring browse. Further, it appears that deer may also depend

on stochastic events – random environmental occurrences – to some degree (Masse and Cote 2011; Shepherd).

Tree root sprouting due to disease, masts of acorns and Beechnuts, and windblown trees have served as subsidies

to woody browse in the Nature Preserve (Horvath, 2014), although it is not within the scope of deer intelligence to

determine when such events will occur and plan accordingly. Thus, deer behavior can help to mitigate food

scarcity.

Finally, deer successively select lower and lower quality forage in the absence of abundant and nutrient-dense

foods. When the abundance of one type of vegetation drops, they move on to the next. Highly unpalatable foods

such as Beech sprouts (“Deer Impact Monitoring on Cranberry Pond Conservation Area”), alkaloid containing fern

fronds (Rooney 2008), and eventually low quality grasses can be consumed in times of stress, highlighting the

adaptive change from selective browser to grazer that some deer have made out of desperation (Horvath, 2014;

“Deer Impact Monitoring on Cranberry Pond Conservation Area”). In the most dire circumstances, some deer

have even been witnessed eating dead leaves, twigs, and tree bark to ward off starvation (Horvath, 2014; Masse

and Cote, 2011). This has proven successful in comparison to the normative browsing condition as long as the net

quantity of caloric intake remains similar. In experimental study, “fawns fed the poor-quality diet maintained a

higher forage intake rate throughout the winter than fawns fed the control diet, suggesting a compensationary

response to the decrease of forage quality by consuming more forage during winter” (Taillon et a. 2006). Deer,

thus, demonstrate their generalist herbivory strategy, which contributes to the overall phenotypic plasticity of the

species. Deer foraging behaviors, movement patterns, and habitat selection play a vital role in allowing the

perpetuation of a high density deer population and the overconsumption of nutrient-rich understory vegetation that

results.

Beech sprout height has been evaluated because they are mildly distasteful to deer. Reasonably, with greater deer

pressure, one might expect shorter Beech sprouts due to the lessened availability of more palatable forage.

Notably, the average Beech sprout height in the Nature Preserve is well below waist height, with some areas

exhibiting less than one-foot-high shoots. Bernd Blossey has attested that beech sprout height can be the greatest

indicating factor to unhealthy deer pressure, where shoots around one foot in height signify overabundance and

lower pressure results in taller beech sprouts, at least double in size (Blossey 2014). Tom Rawinski has compiled

data of Beech sprout height fluctuation in a 2014 rep-

ort from Cranberry Pond Conservation Area. Based on the data depicted in Figure 2, he has found that deer utilize

Beech sprouts in the winter season, when other woody browse is more scarce. Notice that the two curves, which

are two separate experimental replications, seem to fit each other’s height fluctuation. This signifies the deer

pressure on Beech sprouts during the winter, and their utilization of more favorable brose with the onset of the next

growing season. He also has signified that one curve shows taller Beech sprouts due to data exclusion; the top

curve shows a higher average because more Beech sprouts died and their height (zero) was excluded (“Deer

Impact Monitoring at Cranberry Pond Conservation Area”).

19.8 20.618.4

20.817.4 17

22.125.8 24.9

30.828.4 30.3

5101520253035

1-J

an

-11

1-A

pr-

11

1-J

ul-

11

1-O

ct-1

1

1-J

an

-12

1-A

pr-

12

1-J

ul-

12

1-O

ct-1

2

1-J

an

-13

1-A

pr-

13

1-J

ul-

13

1-O

ct-1

3

1-J

an

-14

1-A

pr-

14

1-J

ul-

14

1-O

ct-1

4

Mean Height (in)

Date

Figure 2. Changes in Beech Sprout Height After Four Growing Seasons,

Cranberry Pond Conservation Area, Braintree, MA ("Deer Impact

Monitoring at Cranberry Pond Conservation Area").

East (n=46): 2 died

West (n=34): 10 died

Professors Andrus, Shepherd, and Clarke have noticed the marked decline in ground-nesting bird species,

culminating in their recent extirpation throughout the Preserve. This was caused by the low density of ground

cover within which to hide or use as nest-building material. Rossell et al. 2007 demonstrated the adverse effect

that deer could play in reducing the thickness of understory vegetation below one meter in elevation above the

forest floor. Additionally, food sources for these specialist species were lacking. “Lowbush Blueberry, Maple-

leaved Viburnum, and Blackberry, which under normal circumstances would provide soft mast (i.e., berries and

the like) for many species of wildlife, are now too stunted to bear fruit. Thus, there are ripple effects, or, as

researchers say, ‘cascading ecological effects’, of deer overabundance throughout the ecosystem” (Rawinski, 24).

In the case Study of the Nature Preserve, species such as Maple-Leafed Viburnum and Blackberry are non-

existent, not just exhibiting stunted growth (Horvath 2014), indicating the sentinel species role that they may play

(Blossey 2014). Ground-nesting bird absence due to a trophic cascade signifies an exceptional decrease in

understory biomass, presumably supporting the prolonged increase in deer biomass. This reallocation must occur

due to the finite availability of ecosystem nutrients. Therefore, biodiversity loss should be expected, along with a

reorganization of the ecosystem, in the instance of herbivore biomass imbalance (Bressette and Beck 2012).

Bernd Blossey, Associate Professor in the Department of Natural Resources and Director of the Ecology and

Management of Invasive Plants Program at Cornell University, gave an EVOS lecture on Monday, October 6th,

2014 that warned of deer density and its relationship with forests. In this talk, he detailed some of the

aforementioned history causation of deer abundance, focusing on the ecology of prolonged deer browsing. He

cited “deer sorting” as a main influence on mature forest composition today. This includes trees that recruit to the

canopy, but also includes understory vegetation, insinuating a more complex story to compositional change than

simply selective deer browsing.

Blossey’s lecture showed how deer presence and earthworm abundance were positively correlated. This is of

importance due to the negative impact that both species have in high abundance. Earthworms are an invasive from

Europe that displace soil invertebrates and help to proliferate Garlic Mustard (A. petiolata), another invasive. A

microbial loop within the intestinal cycle of deer feces is thought to be responsible for earthworm abundance and

soil microinvertebrate absence. By his accounts, opportunistic colonization by Garlic Mustard was facilitated by

the deer in two ways: vegetation degradation and earthworm abundance (Blossey 2014).

Blossey concluded, asserting that there was probably not a single square mile of New York landscape that had an

appropriate deer population, based on forest understory composition statewide. This was a radical statement and

should not be taken lightly. By his professional opinion, deer pressure is a prevalent problem throughout New

York, and probably throughout most of the eastern region (Blossey 2014).

Tom Rawinski is a botanist from the National Forest Service based in Durham, New Hampshire that specializes in

deer pressure research in New England. He and Bernd Blossey have visited Binghamton upon request from

resident ecologists, and both have confirmed the inferences of Binghamton faculty through visual evaluation of

forest understory complexity. Rawinski noted the absence of certain common characteristics of a healthy forest

(Andrus 2014).

An array of differently-aged seedlings should indicate the healthy perpetual regeneration of a stand of trees. An

absence of seedlings is a telling indicator. Chestnut sprouts are a notable example of this due to their relegation in

ecological significance by Chestnut blight. They arise from old American Chestnut stumps and eventually die

from the blight before reaching adulthood. With the incidence of deer, their drawn-out extinction could be coming

to a rapid close. A diversity of wildflowers should be present, as should the pollinators that they support. Many

wildflowers and common plants such as Jewelweed, White Trillium, New England Blazing Star, Mayflower,

Maple-leafed Viburnum, and Red Alder can therefore act as sentinel species due to their abundance in a healthy

forest understory. Rawinski found these sentinel species and prominent characteristics lacking in the Nature

Preserve. Finally, Tom commented on the short stature of American Beech sprouts. He noted that 8-9 inches, as

was seen in the Nature Preserve lowlands, was a clear indicator, along with the other absences of common forest

characters, that the deer problem here was uniquely severe (Andrus 2014).

Rawinski and Blossey, both very well acquainted with deer pressure concerns in multiple case studies, have

mentioned that Binghamton University’s situation is the worst they have ever seen (Andrus 2014). As stated

earlier, sustained deer density seems to have been fostered by the generalist nature of deer, ecological subsidies

such as suburban plantings, and stochastic events such as acorn mast and windfall.

In the interest of researching the problem more thoroughly, six exclosures were erected within the Preserve. This

is the recommended method for evaluating deer pressure (Andrus 2014) and is commonplace within experimental

ecological studies of many interests. The structures in the Nature Preserve have been evaluated accordingly for

presence of extirpated species, seedling abundance, and ground vegetation density. Dylan, the Nature Preserve

Steward, has noticed an obvious difference in control area to exclosure area ground cover, with the latter exhibiting

greater density of vegetation. However, there was poor representation of extirpated wildflowers and seedlings

initially. This was surprising, as vegetation under forest cover that is released from browsing pressure typically

exhibits growth in the first year, but then less thereafter. It is thought that light represents the limiting factor in

such instances (Rossell et al. 2007). In the case of Binghamton, the opposite effect observed could signify seed

bank exhaustion due to agricultural use that was followed by heavy deer pressure (Andrus 2014). It is certainly not

caused by human trampling in most places – except for the beaten paths and a few select, well-visited areas

(Horvath 2014) – as suggested by Mr. and Mrs. Gruver, Town of Vestal residents (Gruver 2014). Presently rare or

extirpated flowers and plants used to be abundant in greater numbers and people still frequented the Nature

Preserve at that time, disproving that theory (Horvath 2014).

In time, some seedlings and a few wildflowers have recruited the substrate through other methods such as wind

and animal dispersal. In a guided tour of the exclosures I saw Red Alder, Jack in the Pulpit, Starflower,

Mayflower, and Red Trillium, all of which are “deer candy”. Further, I saw seedlings of maples, Black Cherry,

ashes, Chestnut Oak, Hemlock, Sassafras, Witch-hazel, and Arrow-wood that were also very uncommon or not

present in the control areas. Further, the beech sprouts were also above waist-height within the exclosures.

Aside from these qualitative measures, an attempt to quantify deer abundance has also been made. Deer

themselves are an understory species, and Dylan has visually assessed their abundance and activities by walking

through the forest and observing the present deer. This was possible due to the browse line’s existence and the

deer’s lack of skittish behavior.

Dylan noted that there appeared to be two separate populations of deer, likely representing two different lineages.

One group stays mainly in the CIW woods and on campus, foraging on campus plantings in daylight and becoming

emboldened by the lack of predation. The other group habituates the Nature Preserve and surrounding residential

communities. Their territory is much larger and separated from daily human activities, causing them to appear

more skittish. It is also possible that there may be further small groups of deer located on the fringes of the

Preserve. Forest sites for bedding and watering would supplement foraging in the suburbs. Dylan determined that

there were somewhere between forty to sixty deer within the CIW woods alone. He was able to more-accurately

quantify this population because of their relatively bold behavior. This number was attained only through visual

counting of individual deer; no scientific extrapolation of data was used. Extrapolated, this data inferred a deer

density of about one hundred per mile2.

Figure 3. Binghamton University Deer Census (March 23, 2013).

In Figure 3 above, a quantitative analysis of deer abundance is shown. Mandated by President Harvey Stenger,

this infrared image shows groups of deer as red dots in the image, adjusted for color and brightness. It appears that

the deer almost completely vacate the Nature Preserve during the night, foraging on campus and within the

surrounding residential areas (“Binghamton University Deer Census”). This is presumably on residential

plantings, which have served as ecological subsidies to the deer (Andrus 2014). This image, taken on the night of

March 23, 2013, serves to illustrate the deer’s ability to daily migrate (“Binghamton University Deer Census”),

which perpetuates a population above the carrying capacity. The data also suggests that there is a reason for the

deer to ignore their prey instincts, leaving the protection of the forest, and solidifying the conclusion that there is

little to no forage left within the Nature Preserve.

While no formal statistical analysis has been done, the observational conclusions of ecological professionals

should be significant enough to prove that there is a deer problem in general. By these qualitative and quantitative

analyses, it has become clear to relevant experts that deer control must be incorporated into the stewardship regime

to avert further ecological disaster. But what do their findings mean for the forest, deer, and for us? Why should

we care that there is an abundance of deer if we are not partial to the intrinsic perspective?

Social and Environmental Implications

It is worthwhile to entertain these questions because of the social value that the Nature Preserve has, or at least that

it should have. We should therefore care about the Forest’s health for a multitude of reasons. Deer can survive in

overabundance due to their phenotypic plasticity, stochastic environmental change, and ecological subsidies.

However, this says nothing about the overall health of individual deer or the herd as a whole – referring to all the

deer that live within the forest on a landscape level (Cambronne, 23). While the campus population seems to be

adequately compensated with quality forage from campus plantings, the Nature Preserve population does not. The

distance traversed in order to feed is much greater than in the first population, likely resulting in a lesser net energy

profit. Accordingly, the former population appears healthier than the latter, having twins each spring in

comparison to one or no offspring from individuals living off campus. Due to a deer’s habitual presupposition to

reproduce annually, the lack of reproduction in the Preserve population indicates its diminished health. Some

incidence of Nose Botfly has also indicated general unhealthiness. Somewhat antithetically, there were only six

deaths to starvation recorded over the past winter, which was as harsh as they come, and serves to indicate that the

deer population is generally healthy (Horvath 2014. This dichotomy shows how deer health in response to

overabundance is altogether unclear in this case study. However, it is worthwhile to echo the scientific studies

presented by suggesting that individuals may live in a perpetual state of starvation. It is ecologically possible for

the herd to be subsisting miserably, but subsisting nonetheless.

So, the case study’s subsisting deer population is clearly hungry for nutrient-rich foods. I have already showed

how deer are willing and able to support themselves on successively-lower quality forage. But what does this

mean for the forest? Selective browsing appears to enable vegetation sorting, ultimately resulting in the abundance

of low quality forage in the understory. Rooney 2008 stipulates, “With deer present, grasses and sedges account

for 83% of plants present in terms of relative cover. Without deer for 16 years, grasses and sedges account for

only <10%, while total cover by ground-layer vegetation increases fourfold.” Clearly, herbivores have the ability

to drive ecosystem change.

This rearrangement in forest composition has striking implications for the future trajectory of forest types.

Prolonged deer pressure in the wake of Graminoid (from plant family Gramineae, the true grasses) ground cover

could serve to disallow forest regeneration, resulting in a more open woodland (Rooney 2008) as canopy gaps

grow in size and abundance (Andrus 2014). Along a similar vein, ground vegetation replacement by Garlic

Mustard or Hay-scented, New York, Interrupted, and Christmas fern species, which are all relatively unpalatable to

deer (Horvath, 2014), could result in the same scenario.

Tree composition can also be changed, but this process is easier to ignore due to the time required to recruit to the

canopy and die, providing space for a new recruit (McGarvey et al. 2013). American Beech, which has

demonstrated resistance to moderate deer pressure, could therefore become more abundant, making the entire

forest community more susceptible to Beech bark disease (Rossell et al. 2007). In the case of Binghamton, the

deer pressure is so high that even Beech sprouts have difficulty surviving. Coupled with the prevalence of infected

Beech trees in the Nature Preserve, this problem is not likely to occur. However, this throws the future forest

composition in to even greater question. It appears that no tree species is effectively resistant to deer pressure. It

would not be irrational in this instance to suggest that the Nature Preserve forest could undergo a slow and drawn-

out death before becoming a landscape of unpalatable shrubs and grasses.

The last few paragraphs would tend to appeal to an intrinsically-oriented person, but would do little to inspire

action in someone who does not personally identify with deer, the forest, or nature in general. To address this

point, I would like to show how a forest is instrumentally important to the goals set by Binghamton University.

Forests represent a collection of stored carbon, which has obviously contributed to 19th and 20th century carbon

emissions in the form of logging. Likewise, the slow demise of the forest would have a net carbon release effect,

greatly contributing to the carbon footprint of campus and defying the goal of sustainability. However, a forest is

more than a collection of trees. I have referenced the canopy, understory, and ground vegetation that all contribute

to the complexity of a forest. But more than that, there is also the living soil that supports the vegetation above-

ground physically and chemically through complex relationships between plant roots, microbes, and soil particles.

There is evidence that soil degradation caused by such disturbances as ungulate trampling, absence of ground

vegetation, and a change in soil temperature could result in an efflux of carbon into the atmosphere. Bressette and

Beck 2012 shows how saplings in deer exclosure plots were far superior at sequestering carbon than those in the

control group, likely due to decreased physical damage and probability of survival. Likewise, “Carbon

sequestration in saplings were 94% greater in the deer exclosures than in the control plots” (Bressette and Beck

2012), indicated by stem density differentials. To take this even further, soil erosion caused by poor ground-layer

vegetation density has the potential to increase carbon emissions while depleting the forest’s capacity to store

carbon (Andrus 2014). Even if the future landscape does not reflect the relatively extreme examples of forest

demise that I have proposed, the net carbon release from the soil will still occur. As the soil represents the greatest

terrestrial pool of carbon, and could be utilized to affect sustainability, this information alone should inspire action

in campus administration and other policy-makers.

There are many other ecosystem services which a forest provides, such as clean air and water, shade from the sun,

reducing wind velocity, re-radiation of heat in winter, and others which I have chosen to omit. In general, the less

complex a forest is, or the more disturbed it has become, the less effective the forest will be at providing these

services (Andrus 2014). All ecosystem services must be evaluated on our quest to sustainability, but as carbon

footprint analysis is popular right now, I thought I’d highlight it in general. For as environmental problems fall in

and out of favor with the public, being a greater or more distant threat to society, it falls on the public and its

policy-makers to address environmental problems as a whole by capitalizing on unique and severe examples of

environmental destruction.

Section III: Difference in Perspective and How They Have Related to Environmental Policy

It is the responsibility of landscape managers to respond to ecological imbalance in whatever way suits the

governing principles of the land in question. Current Binghamton University administration, having final authority

over all University policies, has refused to pursue policies that would address the local nuisance animals, despite

pointed advice from the Natural Areas Steward and other expert ecological advisors. Though ecologists

recommend culling as the most humane option for effectively addressing the deer population problem, campus

administration hesitates to act for fear of injuring the fragile public image of Binghamton University. Indecision –

the result of inadequate evaluation of campus and community support for a proposed deer cull – facilitates

perpetuation of deer overgrazing in natural areas, on campus, and in the surrounding community.

The deer culling matter has gained public attention from many different-minded people and multiple avenues of

response have been proposed. In this section, I will demonstrate the perspective of concerned parties, with

relevance to the past actions of Binghamton University administration, present conditions, and proposed future

resolutions. I will also highlight specific opinions that have resulted in the current administration’s inaction on this

issue, demonstrating the relative apathy toward environmental issues altogether. While a myriad of policy options

have been presented from which the policy makers ought to choose, the reality is that there are external factors that

pay hindrance to administrative action.

The Expert’s Perspective

From the ecologist’s point of view, no one species should be allowed to lead to the destruction of countless others.

But beyond intrinsic relevance, the Nature Preserve also provides a number of instrumental values to the natural

sciences in particular. From the environmental educator’s perspective, it is a valuable laboratory for students and

used by the faculty to conduct environmental research. Professors also frequently use the natural setting to show

examples of ecological principles and as a tool to demonstrate ecosystem and vegetation variation with relevance

to habitat for common plants and animals. With the forest laboratory compromised, it has become very difficult to

teach certain units and classes or conduct research. In this way, even the less active environmentalists have been

adversely affected.

In response to the supposed deer overpopulation and the implied effects to the environment and to us, ecologists

initially vetted their options. There are many ways to reduce the population size of a nuisance animal such as

capture and release elsewhere, enclosing an area with fencing, contraception, sterilization, trap and euthanize,

permitted hunting, and culling. The task force charged with making a decision at that time determined that culling

was the most effective and humane way to reduce the nuisance population effectively, casting aside the other

options as ineffective, inhumane, immoral, or otherwise ill fitting of the management criteria. The following are

reasons why the committee did not favor certain environmental management techniques:

• Transporting deer is illegal in New York State due to the possibility for spreading Cervid Wasting Disease

(CWD) and because deer are very abundant in most places (Horvath 2014). Further, this practice is inhumane as

deer are often confused and die for unknown reasons following translocation (Sterba, Cambronne). Incidences

of myopathy have been observed in displaced deer, attributed to a sense of fidelity for ‘home’ (Horvath 2014).

Some committee members also thought it would be immoral of the institution to turn the deer problem over to

somebody else (Andrus 2014).

• Fencing off the Nature Preserve was disfavored for similar inhumane and immoral reasons as above (Horvath

2014). Also, the added cost of fencing in one square mile and providing numerous access gates posed a serious

monetary concern (Andrus 2014).

• Contraception is not approved by the New York state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) except

by special permit because it is unproven to work (“Answers to Common Questions”). Some studies have even

shown that there are negative side effects, causing male deer significant distress because of prolonged estrus

cycles. Males, who often forgo eating in pursuit of as many mates as possible, have died of starvation. There is

also a correlation between contraception and rape, causing stress to the entire herd of deer and casting this

management technique as cruel. The added difficulties of effectively administering contraception on all females

periodically and the slow rate at which this would affect a reduction in population shelved this possibility

(Horvath 2014).

• Sterilization was determined to be impossible to finance and effectively implement due to the vast number of

deer within the population. Even if there were sufficient funds and time to support this technique, the effects

would be too slow to effectively allow environmental restoration, similar to contraception. Also similar to

contraception, tying the fallopian tubes (stopping there) would not be humane, as this would still allow deer to

repeatedly enter estrus. The ovaries would have to be removed in order to avert this negative side effect,

necessitating a more invasive and costly procedure (“Cornell University Culls and Studies its Deer Herd”).

• Trap and euthanize would definitely be ecologically effective but was considered less favorable to culling

because of the extra money and labor involved. Some could also argue that undue stress would be caused to

trapped animals after they were captured (Horvath 2014).

• The prospect of opening up the Preserve to hunting causes many reasons for concern. Who would be allowed to

hunt, with what weaponry, and how frequently? How would safety be assured in the Nature Preserve? How

would safety be assured in the surrounding suburbs? How could there be any certainty that the deer population

would be reduced to the desired density? How long would the Nature Preserve be closed to students and

community members who use it frequently? For these uncertainties and probably more, permitted hunting was

disfavored because it would be too difficult to regulate (Horvath 2014).

The result of this analysis was that the committee favored culling by default. Dylan Horvath, the Steward, was a

notable example of the manner in which the result was arrived at. Initially, he was not in favor of a deer cull for

personal reasons. However, as the facts were presented, “I knew that it would be irrational to say that we shouldn’t

kill the deer. Predators prevent the suffering of the old and the weak [in the natural setting], and I couldn’t ignore

that rational thought” (Horvath 2014). Only trained sharpshooters could be counted on to fulfill all the criteria of

an effective ecological management response to deer overpopulation. Most importantly, the desired ecological

result would be easily accomplished through baiting at multiple sites, attracting the deer population. Safety of the

hunters would be ensured by their scarcity and by nature of following a constructed plan. Suburban safety would

be ensured because the distant bait and kill sites would be chosen such that any missed shots would be caught in a

hill or tree. Finally, the deer would be humanely dispatched, dying quickly from a shot to the head instead of

wasting away slowly in the destroyed natural community that is the Preserve or being struck by a moving vehicle,

which would endanger human lives and property as well. As a humanitarian bonus, this technique would also

produce thousands of pounds of venison, literally tons of meat which could be donated to local food pantries

(Andrus 2014, Horvath 2014, “Answers to Common Questions”).

With the demonstrated ecological justification and management motive supporting them, ecologists applied for a

nuisance animal removal permit from the DEC and filed the appropriate paperwork. An official document

detailing the deer issue was drafted by the Steward and submitted for review. Concurrently, the administration at

that time was notified of the issue and urged to comply with the recommendations of the environmental committee.

President Peter Magrath, interim president of Binghamton from 2010-2011, was in favor of this proposed

management plan and supported its implementation. The DEC reviewed and accepted the management plan in

2011, allowing the administration and ecologists to collaborate in orchestrating the 2012 deer cull (Horvath 2014).

Past Public Opinion

When the public became aware of the proposed cull, there were a variety of responses. Some people were in favor

and some were indifferent. Members of the local community that were outspoken against the management plans

had a few reasons. Mostly, local hunters wanted the right to hunt the deer themselves (Horvath 2014). Some

people were concerned about public safety, especially people who lived in the surrounding suburbs. A select few

were animal rights activists and branded the University environmental team as foolish and ill-informed.

As a formal public response, animal rights activists from many distant places were enlisted to petition the cull.

The website Change.org was used as a medium to bring this issue to public attention and spread the opinions of

“Italia Millan” from Auburn Hills, Michigan, who authored the petition’s outreach statement. She compiled a list

of reasons why anyone and everyone should be interested in halting the “senseless deer slaughter at B.U.’s Nature

Preserve” (“Urgent”), including support from a few peer-reviewed scientific studies. The petition got 8,730

supporters from change.org members and was distributed to Nancy Zimpher, Chancellor of SUNY, James

VanVoorst, Binghamton University Vice President of Administration, Binghamton University interim President

Peter Magrath, Binghamton University President-elect Harvey Stenger, and Julian Shepherd, Chairman of the

Binghamton University Committee for the University Environment (CUE). It should be noted that the most

prominent comments on the petition’s discussion board were posted by people from Bedford, Ohio; Puerto

Vallarta, Mexico; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Silver Springs, Maryland; and Rochester Hills, Michigan (“Urgent”).

While this petition did not have the desired effect of influencing Binghamton University policy-makers, it did

sound the alarm and influence other eager members of the public that became outspoken against the proposed cull,

but in a different way.

Unfortunately for ecologists, the University was sued by a neighboring property owner and Professor of English at

Binghamton University with the political backing of an animal rights organization called “In the Defense of

Animals” on the grounds of public safety concerns and animal rights violations that the deer cull could induce.

Broome county Justice Molly Fitzgerald, who heard this case (“Judge Considers Effort to Stop Binghamton

Campus Deer Culling”), ruled that the University must comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act

(SEQRA) two days before the scheduled cull, insisting that the University must acknowledge any negative

environmental impact to an overseeing agency. It has remained on indefinite hold ever since (Horvath 2014).

Although Binghamton University policy-makers complied with the court’s ruling, ecologists protested. Mandating

a SEQRA review and overriding DEC requirements would be “an illogical circle because the DEC would oversee

the project anyway” (Horvath 2014). Further, the DEC had explicitly stated that Binghamton University’s project

only required an animal nuisance form, which questioned whether the environmental management and intervention

would impact the movement or size of an animal population. The DEC did not require a SEQRA review, which

was premise to appeal. However, the DEC declined to make a statement on the court ruling when confronted.

There was no way to avert the Justice’s decree without state support (Horvath 2014).

Today, the deer cull issue remains a prominent conversation point in the environmental community, as the

ecological, educational, and societal problems it creates are part of our everyday lives. The Steward and Chairman

of CUE have submitted the SEQRA review to the DEC and the cull has, again, been approved. With everything in

order legally, environmental activists have become rather restless. They still assert that action must be taken for

ecological and educational reasons and that a cull is the only way the deer population can be brought back to

sustainable levels.

Other Institutions and Their Deer Problems

The prominence of deer overabundance has arisen elsewhere since the failed attempt locally. Vassar College and

Cornell University have both been negatively impacted by deer abundance and have resolved to address the issue.

Coincidentally, the most humane and effective tactic was also determined by a committee of naturalists and

administration to be a deer cull in both cases.

Vassar has used a website to reach out to interested or ignorant community members as a way to avoid the

problems that Binghamton has faced (“Answers to Common Questions”). In the end, the same organization, “In

the Defense of Animals”, was responsible for supporting a Poughkeepsie resident, Marcy Schwartz, and her

endeavor to halt the deer cull. This was only temporarily successful. “On Dec. 21, 2012, state supreme court

Justice James Brands said the DEC had acted properly and denied the plaintiff’s request for a restraining order:

Vassar then went ahead with the deer kill” (Press and Sun – Bulletin). An appeal followed this ruling, but it was

similarly unsuccessful. The appeals court ruled that Justice Brands had indeed made the correct ruling on October

25th, 2014, upholding the validity of the 2012 deer cull and the DEC’s administrative actions. Jeff Kosmacher, a

public spokesperson for Vassar, commented on the monumental significance of the two rulings. In effect, Vassar

was provided with positive press that demonstrated the institution’s dedication to solve environmental stewardship

problems within the confines of the law (Press and Sun – Bulletin). Vassar’s 2010 ad 2012 culls (Vancamp) have

been justified by the courts, and so have others in the future that will be conducted to manage the deer population.

Cornell, on the other hand, has not run into legal trouble in the same light as Vassar College or Binghamton

University. Although there was an animal rights campaign in opposition to the “trap and bolt” technique, there

was no legal action taken against Cornell for some reason. Bernd Blossey stated, “Despite the social media storm

that was created, we got the support of the administration” (“Cornell University Culls and Studies its Deer Herd”).

During Blossey’s lecture, he also shared insight into Cornell’s deer population management techniques and

the policy process that has been followed. Initially, the two-hectare exclosure in the care of the Atkinson Center

for a Sustainable Future (ACSF) was used to justify action on the part of Cornell environmental management

professionals. Once it was determined that deer were indeed the problem, the management team then moved

forward to evaluate deer control options. In a prolonged experiment, the Cornell management team determined by

trial and error that a deer cull was necessary. For experimental manipulation, they planted oak seedlings within

exclosures at forty Tompkins County locations, including the Cornell campus, as well as twelve locations in the

Hudson River Valley (Blossey), and then evaluated survival rates in comparison to control groups. Management

techniques were then varied temporally at sites on the Cornell campus, while off-campus sites were only

observationally evaluated. The first “trial” was conducted after does were sterilized by resident veterinarians.

This five-year effort cost an estimated $800-$1000 per deer, but did not result in a decrease in the deer population

(“Cornell University Culls and Studies its Deer Herd”). The second “trial” involved opening up select campus

grounds to a restricted number of local hunters, who were vetted and received special permission from campus

administration (Blossey).

The overwhelming truth was that sterilization and permitted hunting resulted in the same conclusion as no action,

or the control group; within thirty days, all the planted oak seedlings were browsed. This signified a heavy

browsing pressure that disallowed prolonged substrate recruitment of seedlings and canopy recruitment of

saplings. Clearly, the sterilization and hunting techniques did not reduce the deer population by a healthy enough

margin to affect lower deer pressure.

As this result was not acceptable to the conservation personnel at Cornell, they have settled on a “bolt and trap”

technique as a viable option for deer control. This is essentially the same as sharpshooters, except that this method

allows researchers to take tissue samples from trapped individuals before dispatching them (“Cornell University

Culls and Studies its Deer Herd”). DEC nuisance permits were obtained in 2013 and 2014 with no qualms from

the Cornell administration. In 2014, thirty-seven of an estimated one hundred resident deer were shot, resulting in

nine hundred pounds of venison meat that was given to hunters and to a local food pantry (Blossey 2014).

The Binghamton University campus administration remains painfully aware of the latest news in deer

overabundance. Outspoken environmental activists, such as resident faculty members and students, make sure to

fill in relevant policy-makers on their personal opinions concerning the trajectory of the Nature Preserve. It is

unclear whether policy-makers know about Vassar and Cornell’s successes. Unfortunately for the

environmentalists, their voiced opinions have not induced action.

The Administrator’s Perspective and the Students’ Response

Binghamton University President Harvey Stenger, the leader of campus administration and head policy-maker, is

unwilling to confront this issue publicly. He is unwilling to compromise the institution’s image at any cost. “To

me, the risk [of bad press] is not outweighed by the benefit of forest regeneration because I am not convinced that

culling will work. Until [the ecologists] can convince me that culling will work, it won’t outweigh the risk”

(Stenger). He continued, insinuating that he viewed culling as ineffective because deer could, and would move in

again. Whether by proliferation or herd movement, the deer problem would persist from his perspective,

necessitating repeated culls and repeated bad press (Stenger).

In a casual conversation with him, President Stenger further explained his fear of bad press. The change.org

petition seems to have resonated with him, perhaps due to his appearance on the Binghamton scene right in the

middle of the animal rights activist public outcry and just as the court ruling was reached. He noted that there were

almost nine thousand signatures on the animal rights petition, but that he only received seven environmentalist

emails by comparison. I did not ask whether he was aware of the addresses of some of the bell-ringers for animal

rights, which were not from Binghamton or Vestal, as aforementioned (“Urgent”). Through this simplified

evaluation of public opinion data, he has apparently concluded that the deer cull was in the disfavor of almost one

hundred percent of the public community (Stenger).

Despite this opinion, he admittedly agreed that the deer were overpopulated and that he might be willing to address

the issue by fencing in the entire Nature Preserve. When I responded that ecologists might not support that plan,

he shrugged off the suggestion that it was the University’s responsibility to deal with the deer. Although Stenger

briefly entertained the possibility of taking evasive action toward Nature Preserve destruction, he then faulted,

slighting the severity of the ecological implications. He cited the club in Pennsylvania that his family frequented

when he was a kid, and that he now belongs to as an adult. In a remarkably-careless statement, he noted that the

Nature Preserve was similar in appearance and forest complexity to this club’s landscape, which indicated to him

that the Nature Preserve “would probably be alright” (Stenger) for a few years, and that this issue could be dealt

with later, by someone else, after President Stenger had retired (Stenger) .

There may be a few problems with this statement. First, it is not as though the cited forests are one in the same.

Each one may be very unique, likely displaying very different patterns of vegetative composition, biodiversity, and

complexity. Second, it may be very naïve of the President of a prominent public research institution to base such a

significant claim on the hurried comparison of two ecosystems without any qualitative or quantitative evidence to

back up such a claim. More specifically, it is quite feasible that his family club’s forest might also exhibit

excessive herbivory in the understory, potentially resulting in their similar appearance. Third, this assumption,

coupled with his demonstrated ambivalence to the claims posed by ecologists, indicates a professional disrespect

for the natural sciences. “I am the only one bringing any real science to this issue”, claimed President Stenger,

citing his mandate of an infrared flyover in comparison to the expert opinions of ecologists. This comment in

particular could be construed as professional disrespect for naturalists and their field’s research methods, although

a more thorough interview of him is likely needed for clarification. Importantly, the comment also shows

Stenger’s profound misunderstanding of the natural world that surrounds him. “Natural delays in mature tree

recruitment in a closed-canopy forest may mask the full impact of deer herbivory for decades” (McGarvey et al.

2013), which may understandably contribute to Stenger’s opinions and ambivalence. However, carelessness to this

degree is inexcusable from such a leader.

In fairness, these were side comments in a casual conversation; but that is perhaps more telling of the nature of

President Stenger’s thoughts. His lack of mental attention and care to properly addressing this environmental

problem becomes very evident through his conversational disregard of its severity. Further, the simple fact of his

inaction demonstrates his opinion all too clearly. By not publicly addressing the deer overabundance issue,

environmentalists who observe his actions may be forced to conclude that President Stenger:

• may be willing to allow assumption of public opinion guide his policy decisions (or indecisions);

• may care little for the interactive educational capacity of departments within the natural sciences, the research

potential within natural science fields, the opinions of naturalist professionals, and the intrinsic values of the

environment;

• may be unable to envision a future scenario involving extreme environmental changes;

• may only be motivated to pursue sustainability through the avenues of technology and engineering;

• and therefore may have difficulty leading the policy-making process on this particular issue.

It should be noted that while my statements may not be wholly true, I am only forced to assume this perspective

because President Stenger is unwilling to appreciate posits from ecological research professionals and has yet to

step into the limelight to clarify his personal opinions. At any rate, these statements must be true to some degree

based on the factual chain of events. He has demonstrated this through his actions more-so than through his words,

and thus alienated the environmentalists from the potential for collaboration.

In response to this inaction, some students have been very active in addressing the neglect of the Nature Preserve.

Ryan Ginsberg, writer for the school newspaper, ‘The Pipe Dream’, has come forward to rally students using

Lyme’s disease as justification for culling deer (Ginsberg). He argues that the spread of Lyme’s disease to people

that frequent the nature preserve could increase (Ginsberg). Julian Shepherd, resident ecologist and entomologist

at BU, supports Ginsberg’s statements, affirming that the deer tick population, which is known to carry the

disease-causing bacterium Borrelia, has risen in abundance here in Broome County, spreading northward from

Long Island and New England. He also suggests that this increase will most-likely result in a larger number of

disease-carrying individuals taking residence in the Nature Preserve (Shepherd). I personally received

confirmation in an anonymous email that there were at least two confirmed cases of Lyme’s disease that afflicted

community members (Anonymous), but I have no way of knowing whether these were the only two. It appears

that Ginsberg’s response to Stenger was certainly warranted, as Lyme’s Disease poses significant threats to human

health if not caught in time. Ginsberg and other students could certainly use Lyme’s Disease as a rallying point

against inaction in general.

Deborah Howard, Director of the Office of Sustainability for the greater SUNY system would likely commend

Ginsberg’s statements, for they are some of the only publicly outspoken words against the administration from

students. In a phone interview, Howard stressed the importance of student involvement in this issue, or other

issues for that matter. She suggested that students tell the administration that something must be done about the

campus deer population (Howard). She is in support of Executive Order 88, which is a SUNY-wide mandate

holding buildings under the direct authority of the Governor to a 20% reduction in energy consumption by April

1st, 2020 (Exec. Order 88). Thus, campus administration will undoubtedly be hyper-focused on meeting that goal.

If students wish their particular institutions to take more assertive action with regards to sustainability, or with

regards to a particular facet of sustainability, Howard suggests that they make that fact known. “Students don’t

understand the power they hold in college, a power they probably won’t have again in a very long time” (Howard).

In other words, Howard believes that it is the institution’s duty to listen to their students, and accordingly, she

admitted her disappointment that students hadn’t capitalized on this opportunity to tell administration what the

Nature Preserve means to them (Howard).

From this perspective, it would seem that the student population is partially at fault here. Failure to realize the

importance of the Nature Preserve through activism serves to highlight how little the Nature Preserve might mean

to the collective student body. Even though I have no data to support the following statement, I’m going to make it

anyway: I would not be surprised if over half of the student population had only been in the Nature Preserve a

handful of times, if at all. This claim stems from my observation of peers during my education, and the relative

lack of care for the environment many of them possess. I have heard people scoff at the name ‘Nature Preserve’,

saying, “I would never go in there; aren’t there bears in there?!?” Further, it would seem to me that a greater uproar

would have occurred, had there been mass allegiance to environmental health and specifically the Nature Preserve.

This still does not account for environmental studies and biology majors, who spend an inordinate amount of time,

in class and extracurricularly, in the Nature Preserve. Why have no student groups picketed Couper

Administration building, or lined the campus with signage? Apathy on the part of the student body should also be

addressed in detailing the history of this issue. Inconsequentialism, or the belief that one’s individual actions

would do nothing to change the course of history, seems to have repressed student outcry to disjointed grumblings

among friends.

In conclusion, the future trajectory of the deer abundance issue and Binghamton University’s policy response is

uncertain at best. Environmentalists and animal rights activists have successfully combined to confound the head

policy-maker at Binghamton University. From the context of technology and engineering, President Stenger

cannot conceive of an affective plan of action to address the deteriorating local environment, and he appears to not

want to. In a stunning demonstration of inadequate evaluation, Stenger is content to allow assumption to guide the

policy-making process at Binghamton University. In response to this, the students have been largely absent from

the knowledge or discussion of the deer issue, leaving no incentive to alter the administrative course of action.

Section IV: A Survey of the Binghamton University Student Body and Surrounding

Residential Areas: Assessment of Knowledge and Opinions Concerning the “Deer Issue”

In the interest of demonstrating public outreach and a proper response to the unclear public opinion, I have

conducted a survey of the campus population and local residential communities. Survey questions were posed in a

way that gauged participants’ opinions, but also their level of attention to the deer issue. In this section, I will

detail the methods, results, and conclude with the discussion of public opinion and knowledge. The data has the

potential to enlighten administrators so they may not have to base policy decisions off general assumptions or the

assertions of extremists that do not adequately represent local human populations. Overall, the survey can also be

utilized to make a public statement to policy makers.

Methods

I conducted a survey of residents from the surrounding suburbs, Binghamton students, and faculty members.

Survey questions were tailored so that the answers would reflect a participant’s general knowledge and opinions

concerning the deer cull at Binghamton University. Question content and order were manipulated so that

participants could honestly answer questions concerning their awareness, and then have the opportunity to reassert

their position upon being presented with potentially-new information. Participants were always provided with a

“no opinion” option when complex concepts or opinions were in question. Likewise, participants were notified of,

and had the opportunity to stop taking the survey at any time by closing the browser. The survey was constructed

using surveymonkey.com, and the unique URL address, https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/bu-

naturepreserve_deer, was included in the recruitment documents. Further, the survey complied with Human

Subjects requirements, and was subjected to, and subsequently passed review by that department.

Participant recruitment was achieved through a combination of online email and paper-mail methods, whereby the

invitation to potential participants allowed for voluntary participation in the survey. Students and faculty were

recruited by forwarding the recruitment papers to department list-serves through email. Suburban residents were

recruited by sending the recruitment papers to their home address. Community recipients were determined using

maps.google.com, and recruitment remained random, with the only criterion being that a potential participant must

live in a development adjacent to the Nature Preserve. By this method, there was a greater probability that

participants would be people who frequent the Nature Preserve and care about policies concerning it.

Results

I found that a large majority of the people surveyed have been in support of the deer cull in the past and that a

greater majority became in favor of the cull after being enlightened about certain factual details. Refer to the

Appendix for a full readout of survey questions and their data summaries. Firstly, as Table 2 indicates, a majority

of survey participants agree with the statement: “There are too many deer in the Nature Preserve”. Table 1, shown

below, is a summary table of the survey’s most telling questions and answers, and the percent change between

repeated questions. I have combined similar answers to evaluate the results of the survey. “Strongly Support” and

“Support” have been combined, as have “Strongly Oppose” and “Oppose”. “Neutral” and “No Opinion” have

been combined as well because Q10 has a “Neutral” option.

Table 1.

Question

Support

(%)

%

Change

Oppose

(%)

%

Change

Neutral/No Opinion

(%)

%

Change

10 61.11 - 9.53 - 29.37 -

14 79.92 30.78 14.57 52.88 5.2 -82.22

16 83.95 5.04 12.69 -12.91 3.36 -35.39

Total %

Change

37.38

33.16

-88.56

Q10, which asked participants if they had been in favor of the cull during the initial attempt, shows that, even

initially, there was a majority of public support for the cull. This was in comparison to little opposition and almost

1/3 participant indifference. After being enlightened that the cull was cancelled, that the DEC gave their

permission, and that an infrared flyover had been conducted to verify deer abundance, support increased by 31%.

Opposition also increased by 53%, but remained below 15% of the total participant opinion. Importantly, Q11, 12,

and 13 sorted those who initially had “No Opinion”, with an 82% decrease in indifference from Q10 to Q14.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Q15 informed participants of a scientific consensus supporting the deer cull. This indicated that experts who were

aware of a proper deer population density, a healthy forest’s appearance, and had personally investigated the

Nature Preserve were all in agreement. The reiteration of the important question in Q16 also showed an increase

in support, this time by 5%, making the % change in support for a deer cull 37% from Q10 to Q16. The overall

support for a cull was 84% of participants, with 64.5% strongly supporting. This is compared to an overall 13% in

opposition, with 5% in strong opposition. Additionally, an overall 88.5% decrease in participant apathy toward a

deer cull was noted.

Discussion

Q7 clearly indicates that participants are aware that there is an ongoing discussion about deer abundance occurring

and that an overwhelming majority are strongly in favor or in favor of the assertion that “There are too many deer

in the Nature Preserve”. Likewise, this implies that participants would generally prefer a situation where there are

less deer in the Nature Preserve for some reason. It is therefore surprising to find the following question, Q8, to

have a dissimilar alliance of public opinion. There is a smattering of different opinions as to the University’s past

environmental management actions. I would normally gather from Q8 that the local community members were in

favor of some other management regime besides a cull that resulted in deer abundance decrease, but Q10 disproves

that assertion. It appears that about 62% of participants were strongly in favor of or in favor of a deer cull two

years ago, with the next highest category being 20% “no opinion / I answered no [to Q9]”.

Q13 indicates that more than 68% of participants were unaware that an infrared flyover was conducted subsequent

to the initial cull attempt, verifying the qualitative assumptions of ecologists. This is immensely important because

it demonstrates that there was a majority of participants in favor of the deer cull before they were even aware of

this quantitative analysis of deer abundance. Supplementing this assessment, the majority increased to an

overwhelming 80% when participants were asked whether they supported a deer cull in Q14, which was after they

were given the infrared flyover information. It is interesting to note that although this majority has increased, the

percentage of those opposed has also increased from 8% to 13%. My explanation for this occurrence is that the

individuals who were indifferent to the cull were only indifferent because they felt that they were not adequately

informed. Upon receiving minimal information, they may have felt comfortable enough to pledge their opinion

one way or the other.

Once the participants were asked in Q15 whether they were “aware of a scientific consensus that exists, advising

that a healthy deer population should be in the range of 5 – 15 individuals per square mile”, which only half of

them were aware of, the percentage of participants that “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” with a proposed cull jumps to

84%, and accordingly, 94% implied in Q17 that a deer cull could be a beneficial environmental management tool

used in the Nature Preserve and elsewhere. This is highly significant in that the reiteration of the question “Given

this information, how would you describe your support?” shows a portion of the public who have not been

adequately informed and that once they are, most of them align with scientific consensus.

Q18 queried, “In general, who do you believe should make the decision regarding the necessity of a deer cull on

publicly-owned University land?” and the results were mixed. 37% said that scientists alone should make the

decision while 48% of participants answered that a “combination of the above” should collaborate to make the

decision. With no clear majority, and with many people believing that scientists should play at least a major role

in the policy process at an educational institution, this question’s results could imply public frustration with the

current administration. This inference is solely based on my knowledge of the current administration and the fact

that scientific experts are being ignored. It is unclear how much of this information the public is aware of or can

infer.

With the last question, Q19, there is another example of varied answers. This could pose some qualitative

significance, as it is clear by this question, Q8’s varied responses, and the lack of public knowledge demonstrated

in many other questions that Binghamton University’s lack of public presence in the face of this issue has resulted

in collective public ignorance.

Importantly, the cumulative data does not represent what is assumed about the public by Harvey Stenger in any

capacity. Yes, there are representatives of the community that oppose the cull, but they in no way encompass a

solid majority of public opinion, much less greater than 90%! It is clear from this one survey that the assumptions

made about the public were rash and unjustified.

I would like to counter this perspective by suggesting that this survey data alone does not justify any clear course

of action, at least in terms of a definitive “yea” or “nay to the deer cull. Many people likely remain too unaware of

factual ecology or the resolution of the court ruling. It is clear from this survey that Binghamton University should

maintain a more public presence with regard to this issue, if only to field questions from interested community

members. Further, this survey says nothing about how a university feels it should conduct itself in policy-making

and implementation, only what tax-payers think. If the University decides to give decision-making power to the

tax-payers in the local community, that is the institution’s right. However, it should be noted that environmental

experts and university policy-makers have the capacity to affect the correct decision without public help or

support. While it may be a worthwhile endeavor to educate the local community about public university policies,

it is not wholly clear whether Binghamton University must necessarily take action in regard to their opinions.

Section V: Personal Opinions and Concluding Statements

It should be relatively clear by now that I am an environmentalist. My perspective in writing demonstrates that I

am partial to the general conclusion that has been reached by the many ecologists that have evaluated the Nature

Preserve and offered an opinion. In this section, I will expand upon my own opinions to discuss how the policy-

making process should take place and how I think policies should be executed as the principle researcher. I will

evaluate the role that universities might play in public education and the moral obligations an institution of higher

learning might have. My motivations behind these statements and writing this paper in general will be explained

as I lead this conversation to its conclusion.

Personally, I feel that the problem of deer overpopulation should be addressed due to the destruction of the Nature

Preserve, which I value intrinsically. If I remove my emotions, I arrive at the same result, but for utilitarian

reasons that distinctly echo the perspective of resident and visiting ecologists/naturalist professionals. The forest

ecosystem provides many services that are valuable to a sustainable society. We should embrace those services as

important and worthy of our attention, protecting them from degradation due to environmental imbalance.

Therefore, I believe that University policy-makers have an obligation to protect these services, and the ecosystems

that provide them, because it is in our best interest.

Currently, the President has personally halted any effective progress toward protecting the Nature Preserve

capacity to provide ecosystem services. He may or may not be supported by fellow members of the

administration. I do not personally find this insulting because I do not believe that Stenger is refusing to act out of

spite. I am convinced that ignorance and values are the overwhelming drivers of his inaction. Stenger is not an

ecologist and he probably has difficulty empathizing with them, likely having a different value set on which he

bases decisions. “Because value differences divide participants [in policy-making], environmental policy conflicts

are rarely resolved by appeals to reason; no amount of technical information is likely to convert adversaries in such

disputes” (“A Policymaking Framework”). As such, it is likely that the way technical information is gathered is

another motivator of conflict in this instance.

However, I do profoundly disagree with Stenger’s inaction and find his lack of seriousness toward environmental

issues to be concerning at best. Above all, it is important to note that inaction in the face of environmental

problems is in the favor of nobody because the public space becomes more degraded with time. Therefore,

Stenger should make a policy decision sooner rather than later so that the landscape can begin to recover. While I

would personally urge him to make the correct decision based on my own education and opinions, it would

certainly serve the public better to fence in the Nature Preserve, as he briefly suggested, than to allow it to continue

to deteriorate.

Hypothetically, if the University were to endorse a public policy that addressed deer overpopulation in general,

what would the institution be saying? By actions alone, the institution would certainly make such statements as:

• “__________ is valued as a constituent”, depending wholly on what the policy is, who is in support, and

how it is implemented.

• “Environmental problems in general are worth addressing, even if controversial.”

• “Deer overabundance is worth researching, as it is a prevalent issue at BU, within SUNY, throughout New

York, and throughout the eastern region.”

• “It is important to keep supporting the natural sciences as viable career paths. The natural sciences deserve

basic funding for preservation of the main laboratory space used for education and research”, as opposed to

only supporting sciences that are technology-oriented.

• “The Nature Preserve is valuable as an aesthetic benefit for students, faculty, and community members to

enjoy.”

These statements and more are in contrast to the statements currently endorsed by the University, likely causing a

deal of bad press within certain social circles. Such bad press could be corrected with positive statements, which

would serve as beacons to the public, indicating Binghamton University’s serious commitment to sustainability in

many facets.

Whatever the decision, it should be arrived at through a collaboration of policy-makers and environmental

scientists. A situation where the policy-makers blatantly ignore the suggestions of experts is poor leadership at

best, and strains professional relationships because it is personally insulting. By contrast, if the environmental

professionals made the decisions and overrode the policy-makers, there would be no purpose for the unbiased

position that administrators are charged to hold. A much healthier relationship would be one where both policy-

makers and natural scientists appreciate the concerns of each other. Only then can an appropriate decision be

affected.

From my perspective, the public should play little to no role in the institutional policy-making process. Their lack

of expertise in ecology is exacerbated by the use of public media in transfer of information, which generally results

in the spread of misinformation. Additionally, the public will always disagree amongst themselves depending on

personal or religious beliefs, ignorance, personal investment, sensitivity to environmental issues in general, life

experiences, and especially with regard to an increasing sample size. Unless a popular vote was held for certain

issues, there would be no way of addressing or quantifying these potentially-differing points of view. Finally,

although the survey sampled the most relevant people to this issue, and certainly was a better analysis than blind

assumption, I fear the sample size was so small that we may not be able to significantly correlate the results with

average public opinion. Further, as suggested in the Discussion, the public need not be included in this decision

making process altogether if the administration does not think it is pertinent or right to do so. I believe that this is

an instance where the public should not weigh in on the public policy outcome because of the ineptitude of the

average person at understanding complex ecological theories. Yes, they are tax payers and the administration

should listen to what the public has to say and respond to it. However, just as we are not permitted to vote on

congressional bills as American citizens and we must place faith in a delegate, so too should the public place faith

in their public officers to manage the politics behind the deer cull issue, voicing public opinion in the process.

While I am addressing public opinion, I would like to make one thing clear. Irrelevant people do not represent the

“public” in this instance and should bear absolutely no weight in the policy decision, even if public opinion were

considered. Change.org is a website used to muster support for change in general via the internet, where web-

surfers can access any petition, in any subject area, from any location. For all we know, there may be some people

who spend fifteen minutes a day copying and pasting their name for countless causes, all the while being

remarkably unaware of reality. A man from Japan could feasibly sign the petition against deer culling even if he

couldn’t read English to understand what he was supporting.

Likewise, the petition to stop the cull at BU was organized and distributed by change.org member ‘Italia Millan’

from Michigan. She patched together a few scientific studies that said exactly what she wanted them to say

without adequately vetting their content for relevance to the unique ecological condition at BU. Her ignorance is

evident when she says, “The forest ecology in B.U.’s nature preserve is no different than the rest of the forest areas

in New York State” (Change.org petition). This is in comparison to the quantitative and qualitative ecological

analysis that has been conducted by ecologists in favor of the cull. Further, the author of the petition statement

woefully disregarded factual information when she insisted that ecologist claims were not supported by scientific

evidence, deer survey, or environmental impact evaluation. This and other misinformation within the petition

statement likely served to dishonestly induce people to sign. Finally, the petitioners, including the original signer,

were from places hundreds of miles from Binghamton (Change.org).

So how can the petition be taken seriously? Misunderstanding of the problem at hand may skew the opinions of the

petitioners, and even if they were to understand the problem adequately, who cares? They don’t even pay taxes in

New York State, much less Vestal or Binghamton. I understand that change.org is meant to be an organization that

allows for greater expression of first amendment rights, which is a good intent, but I believe that waving around

one’s signature with no attention paid to detail could potentially do more harm than good if one is not careful.

So where can we go from here? The DEC has approved the cull again. The county Justice Fitzgerald that stopped

the cull in January 2012 has no basis to do so again. Further, the appeals court ruling in Poughkeepsie could serve

as a precedent set to justify deer culls at public educational institutions. We are not alone in our problems,

although we do uniquely harbor very high deer browsing pressure. All that remains is approval from

administration.

Overall, the decision that must be made is a difficult one to make. That is why we find ourselves in this

predicament to begin with. But, someone has to be brave enough to make the decision, fully understanding what

that decision means and how it will affect people and the environment. I think the deer need to be culled every few

years because there is no feasible way to keep the population under control otherwise. It is by default that I come

to this conclusion. But, I arrive there nonetheless, realizing that this problem was caused and propagated due to

human disturbance of ecological systems and that a cull is the most humane method for effectively returning the

rate of understory herbivory to sustainable levels. I am justified in my opinion because the environmental health of

the nature preserve, including preservation of all species of animals and plants and the individuals’ lives that

represent them, should take precedent to the preservation of the individuals within one population. It is the

sacrifice of some to save many.

More transparency concerning this issue might help with addressing misinformation and discontentment in the

public, including a more interactive relationship in general between the University and the community.

Additionally, the University should work to make education of the community a goal of policy implementation;

advertising the policy as necessary (and supporting these statements with local data and research) would help

encourage community members to align with the University instead of fighting against a perceived evil. As an

example, Tom Rawinksi recommends setting up more exclosures in publicly-visible areas, not necessarily in the

Nature Preserve. This would serve to advertise the scientific integrity of the University and their policy-making

decision basis. Even my simple demonstration of public outreach pleased and informed many people about this

particular environmental issue, encouraging them to become more involved or to express themselves to me

external to the survey answers.

The only outcome that remains acceptable from the perspective of students culminates in the salvation of the

Nature Preserve from excessive herbivory. The following quote from the Binghamton University website shows

that policy-makers acknowledge the importance of the ecological communities: “Although the Nature Preserve

serves as a valuable educational and recreational resource, perhaps its most important contributions are to the

environment — from flood prevention and improving water quality to supporting biodiversity and serving as a

means for carbon storage.” (Land website bu.edu). This understanding of the Preserve’s instrumental value should

be brought to the attention of relevant administration members, who seem to be financially and personally invested

in technological advances before environmental preservation. More specifically, Binghamton University is very

interested in pursuing sustainability only through those technological advances. Take this example: “In July 2011,

four 68-foot long, 500,000-gallon tanks were installed at the construction site of the University's Center of

Excellence Building (part of the Innovative Technologies Complex) as part of the largest rainwater-harvesting

project to date in upstate New York” (“About the University”). In comparison, the Nature Preserve soil can

hold many times that amount in rainwater, and even more if the soil was healthy. Why can the administration

understand the capacity of ingenuity but not understand the very similar capacity of the environment. Embracing

both technological advancement and environmental protection is paramount in assuring sustainability. In the

interest of the future of natural areas as an educational resource, aesthetically-pleasing space, and preserved forest

community (including environmental services), serious consideration must be taken with respect to the relevance

of concerned parties in opposition to the proposed deer cull. Binghamton University administration needs to act

promptly and address the overpopulation of white-tailed deer while resisting appeal from agents fueled by

misguided principles. This is the only way to save the gem that is the Nature Preserve.

In conclusion, the deer overpopulation issue that was used here as a case study represents Binghamton University’s

incomplete assessment of criteria on which to strive for sustainability. “Ultimately, ecologists, managers, and

policy makers will need to work together to balance carbon mitigation and ecosystem services” (Bressette and

Beck 2012), and therefore, educational institutions should be interested in addressing proper environmental

stewardship within their curricula and in the public arena. This must be done through diligent collaboration to

enact environmental policies, which are supported with scientific evidence, and presented to constituents. In the

case of Binghamton, it must also be done by adherence to policies that have already been negotiated. In Figure 4,

shown on the next page, the University is in violation of a number of their Environmental Policy’s bullet points. In

particular, bullets five and six encourage the University to reach out and educate others about environmental

policies and problems. I would encourage the administration to review the Environmental Policy before their next

meeting concerning deer overpopulation. Overall, environmental professionals must bring problems to attention,

students must support action, and finally, it falls on the policy-makers to empathize with each of the demographics

at hand and evaluate a correct response. A failure in this would indicate personal cowardice and professional

inadequacy in all three demographics. A success in this would represent the mark of true leadership in pursuit of

sustainable policies and a sustainable society.

Figure 4.

Works Cited

"About the University." Binghamton University. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2014.

<http://www.binghamton.edu/sustainability/campus-initiatives/land.html>.

Andrus, Richard E. "Forests, Society, and Civilization." Envi 326. Binghamton University, Vestal, NY. Fall

2014. Lecture.

Anonymous. "DEER." Message to the author. 9 Dec. 2014. E-mail.

"Binghamton University: Cull the Deer in the Nature Preserve." Change.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2014.

Binghamton University Deer Census. Digital image. Binghamton University, 23 Mar. 2013. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.

Blossey, Bernd. "Eco-evolutionary Games: How Invasive Plants, Earthworms and Deer Are Reshaping Our

Neighborhoods." Fall 2014 EVOS Seminar Series. Binghamton University, Vestal, NY. 6 Oct. 2014.

Lecture.

Bressette, James W., and Harald Beck. "The Effects of High Deer Density on Forest Regeneration and Carbon

Sequestration." Environmental Research Journal 7.1 (2012): 11-22. Environment Complete. Web.

Cambronne, Al. Deerland: America's Hunt for Ecological Balance and the Essence of Wildness. Guilford,

Connecticut: Lyons, 2013. Print.

"Deer Overpopulation at Binghamton University." Message to Bernd Blossey. 15 Dec. 2014. E-mail.

Defleur, Lois B., President, ed. Environmental Policy. Policy. Vestal, NY: Binghamton U, 2011. Print.

Dfigura@syracuse.com, David Figura |. "Cornell University Culls and Studies Its Deer Herd on Campus Using

Archers and 'trap and Bolt" Method." Syracuse.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2014.

Ellis, Katie. "Engineering and Science Building Earns LEED© Platinum." - Inside Binghamton University.

Binghamton University, 24 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Dec. 2014.

<http://www.binghamton.edu/inside/index.php/inside/story/binghamton-universitys-engineering-and-

science-building-earns-leed-platinum>.

Exec. Order No. 88, 3 C.F.R. Http://system.suny.edu/capital-facilities/executive-order-88/ (2010). Print.

Ferro, John. "Court Rules 2012 Deer Culling Permit Valid." Pres and Sun - Bulletin [Binghamton, NY] 25 Oct.

2014, Saturday ed., sec. A: 10A. Print.

Ginsberg, Ryan. "University Must Cull Deer to Protect Student Health." Pipe Dream. The Pipe Dream, 25 Nov.

2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2014.

Gruver, Deborah. "Deer Population Survey." Message to the author. 9 Dec. 2014. E-mail.

Horvath, Dylan. "Tour of Nature Preserve Exclosures." Personal interview. 13 Oct. 2014.

Howard, Deborah. Telephone interview. 18 Dec. 2014.

"Judge Considers Effort to Stop Binghamton Campus Deer Culling." CNY Central. The Associated Press, 23 Dec.

2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2014.

Layzer, Judith A. "A Policymaking Framework." The Environmental Case: Translating Values into Policy.

Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2002. 1-19. Print.

Massé, Ariane, and Steeve D. Côté. "Linking Alternative Food Sources to Winter Habitat Selection of Herbivores

in Overbrowsed Landscapes." The Journal of Wildlife Management 76.3 (2012): 544-56. Environment

Complete. Web.

Mcgarvey, Jennifer C., Norman A. Bourg, Jonathan R. Thompson, William J. Mcshea, and Xiaoli Shen. "Effects

of Twenty Years of Deer Exclusion on Woody Vegetation at Three Life-History Stages in a Mid-Atlantic

Temperate Deciduous Forest." Northeastern Naturalist 20.3 (2013): 451-68. Environment Complete. Web.

Millan, Italia. "URGENT: Stop the Senseless Killing of Deer at Binghamton University (NY)!" Change.org. N.p.,

13 Dec. 2011. Web. 13 Dec. 2014.

Rawinski, Thomas J. "Deer and Forests, and the People Who Love Them." Deer Wildlife (n.d.): 16-25. National

Forest Service. National Forest Service. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.

Rawinski, Thomas J. Deer Impact Monitoring at Cranberry Pond Conservation Area, Braintree, Massachusetts.

Rep. N.p.: n.p., 2014. Print.

Rooney, Thomas P. "High White-tailed Deer Densities Benefit Graminoids and Contribute to Biotic

Homogenization of Forest Ground-layer Vegetation." Plant Ecology 202.1 (2009): 103-11. Environment

Complete. Web.

Rossell, C. Reed, Jr., Steven Patch, and Susan Salmons. "Effects of Deer Browsing on Native and Non-native

Vegetation in a Mixed Oak-Beech Forest on the Atlantic Coastal Plain." Northeastern Naturalist 14.1

(2007): 61-72. Environment Complete. Web.

Russell, F. Leland, and Norma L. Fowler. "Effects of White-tailed Deer on the Population Dynamics of Acorns,

Seedlings and Small Saplings of Quercus Buckleyi." Plant Ecology (formerly Vegetatio) 173.1 (2004): 59-

72. Environment Complete. Web.

Shepherd, Julian. Personal interview. 7 Dec. 2014.

Stenger, Harvey. Personal interview. 28 Oct. 2014.

Sterba, Jim. Nature Wars: The Incredible Story of How Wildlife Comebacks Turned Backyards into

Battlegrounds. New York: Crown, 2012. Print.

Taillon, Joëlle, Daniel G. Sauvé, and Steeve D. Côté. "The Effects of Decreasing Winter Diet Quality on

Foraging Behavior and Life-History Traits of White-Tailed Deer Fawns." Journal of Wildlife

Management 70.5 (2006): 1445-454. Environment Complete. Web.

Vancamp, Keri. "A Message for Kevancamp@vassar.edu." Message to the author. 16 Dec. 2014. E-mail.

Vassar Farm and Ecological Preserve. "Answers to Common Questions about the Deer Management Plan for the

Vassar Farm and Ecological Preserve." Vassar.edu. Vassar College, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2014.